Global economic crisis? Banks are unfazed

 

The world economy faces, perhaps, the worst shock since the global financial crisis (GFC). But the world’s global banking system seems not have noticed! How come?

During GFC, regulators banks woke up to the realization that they did not have the capital (in particular, equity capital) needed to survive a major shock. Governments everywhere blew up enormous amounts of tax payer money on saving banks.

After the GFC, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) put in place higher capital requirements. These were pretty modest. For instance, core equity capital (what we understand as equity in accounting terms) requirement was raised to just 4.5 per cent of risk-weighted assets.

Bankers howled at the time. The cleverer ones realized quickly that the market rewards banks with high capital adequacy through higher valuations. So they built up capital buffers well above the regulatory requirements.

The global average for CET 1 (or core equity capital) is now 14.1 per cent, well above the 4.5 per cent mandated by regulation. This means that we can have an economic crisis but that won’t translate into a banking crisis. Banking crises are the most difficult to get out of, so that’s good news for the world economy.

Not to pat myself unduly on my back, but students of my banking courses at IIMA (SPB and MFI) will remember that I had emphasized that higher capital was crucial to competitiveness and valuation in banking post the GFC.

My article in BS, Global Banking is a bright spot.

 

Global banking is a bright spot

 T T Ram Mohan

The Ukraine conflict poses the biggest challenge to growth since the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007. The world economy will grow at 3.2 per cent in 2022 and 2.7 per cent in 2023, says the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  Growth in 2023 will be the lowest since 2010, leaving aside the pandemic year of 2020.

Slow growth and rising interest rates are bad for banks. Slower growth spells an increase in bad loans. Rising interest rates translate into losses in the bond market.   

The astonishing thing is that it appears that the global banking system does not face any high risk of collapse even in these trying times. There is thus hope that the global economy can get back to normal after 2023. Assuming that we escape nuclear annihilation.

The world’s financial system faces an intimidating set of challenges, apart from slowing growth and rising interest rates. The IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR, October 2022) lists these challenges:

• China’s housing market woes: Stringent lockdowns in China have impacted home sales. Buyers do not want to make advance payments for the purchase of properties. As a result, developers face liquidity pressures and many have gone bankrupt.   Banks’ exposure to the property is 28 per cent of total loans. (In India, a bank exposure of more than 10 per cent to the property market is considered risky). The IMF estimates that, in a sample of Chinese banks it looked at,  15 per cent (mostly small banks) could fail to meet the minimum capital requirement.  
• Poor market liquidity: Central banks are tightening monetary policy and shrinking their balance sheets. This has meant less liquidity in the market. Investors would like to sell securities when interest rates rise.   When liquidity is limited, the fall in prices can be steep. Investors trying to exit their holdings of securities end up incurring losses that can trigger panic. 
• Corporate debt at risk: Rising interest rates pose challenges for firms with high debt. The composite picture across advanced and emerging markets is not pretty. The IMF’s sensitivity analysis shows that under conditions of stress 50 per cent of small firms would have difficulty servicing debt. Banks are bound to be impacted. The IMF warns that government support may be required to contain bankruptcies at small firms.
• Leveraged finance under pressure:  Leveraged finance is lending to companies with high debt or a poor credit history. It is, therefore, of the high-yield variety. An increasing share of leveraged finance in recent years is “private credit” or credit that is outside the regulated bank market and the financial markets and is of poor quality. As a result, in the US today, more than 50 per cent of leveraged finance is composed of firms with a B rating or relatively higher risk of default. The leveraged finance market is under increased risk in the present conditions.
• Housing price declines: Rising interest rates could trigger a steep decline in housing prices worldwide. The GSFR estimates that in a “severely adverse scenario”, housing prices could fall by as much as 25 per cent in emerging markets over the next three years; in advanced economies, the fall could be 10 per cent. These orders of declines will have adverse implications for banks.

 

Now, that is a pretty serious set of risks that banks are exposed to. One would think that, in combination, these could spell disaster for banks. The big surprise in the GSFR report is that the world’s banks seem well-placed to cope with the very worst.

All growth forecasts at the moment are predicated on economic conditions continuing pretty much as they are today —that is, the Ukraine conflict remains at the present level, oil prices will be around $92 per barrel, inflation starts coming around to normal levels in the next couple of quarters, etc.

But what if conditions worsen? What if the Ukraine conflict escalates and the US and its partners impose secondary sanctions?  What if the risks listed above materialise together as a result? 

Obviously, global economic growth will be severely hit.  The IMF looks at a nasty scenario. Growth drops from the baseline projection of 3.2 per cent to below minus 3 per cent in 2023 before recovering to around 3 per cent in 2024. The global Common Equity Tier I ratio (the pure equity component) in banking falls from 14.1 per cent of risk-weighted assets in 2021 to 11.4 per cent in 2023 and 11.5 per cent in 2024. These are all well above the regulatory minimum of 4.5 per cent. 

Banks in emerging markets would face a serious problem: Banks accounting for a third of banking assets would lack the minimum capital required. Globally, however, banks that fall below the 4.5 per cent minimum would account for no more than 5 per cent of global banking assets. 

Suppose global growth turned out to be below the IMF projection of 3 per cent plus in 2024 in the adverse scenario. Even then, on the average, one can expect banks globally to be well above the regulatory norm. 

How do we explain these outcomes? Well, there has been a big change in the banking system following the GFC. Bankers have come to realise that it pays to have capital way above the regulatory norm. The market rewards them with higher price to book value ratios because it sees these banks as less susceptible to failure. As a result, banks have raced well ahead of the regulatory curve when it comes to capital adequacy. That is standing the banking system in good stead in these difficult times. 

That is true of the Indian banking system as well. Except that, far from being under stress like their counterparts elsewhere, Indian banks today appear to be on song. The 12 public sector banks together have reported a second quarter increase of more than 50 per cent in profit after tax (PAT) over the previous year. Private banks have reported a growth in PAT of over 65 per cent in the same period. Loans in the banking system are growing at 17 per cent. If the global economic outlook is grim, Indian banks haven’t noticed it!